I went with E.

Answer should be E as it is providing one more reason which undermines the conclusion of the statement

AO: E

E. Is right

E

'coz it gives another reason that undermines the reason in the argument

Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women. Therefore, the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?
(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection.
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices.
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns.


Answer is B. Starting evaluation from E - funding is out of scope
D - local offices is out of scope
C - Extreme
B - Make sense...if few women who run for the elections run against other women then the number of elected women candidates will be less.
A - reelection is out of scope

Answer is E

answEr

Should be E !

The Answer is E !!

Situation: Women are as likely to win as men; 15% are women; therefore the reason for few women who win elections is few women want to run.

It can be the case that women are running for the office against other women then men, which will result in few women who win.

I think B best weakens the conclusion.

paresh -

Choice B would be a good answer but it actually says "FEW women" run against other women. So this means that not many women run against other women and so it actually says the opposite of what you have stated. If it had said "MOST women" run against other women then I would be with you!

David-

So can i say that there maybe few women who are running for the office and these few women are competing among themselves rather then with men?

Answer choice B was written to try to convey the idea that women are not competing against each other. I am not sure if this is what you get when you read it, but it is really trying to say that the women do not compete with each other.

And while I certainly see your point, I would say that if the women are competing against each other the men would be as well, right? I mean, if the two women are running against each other one of them has to win right? So that is a 50% win rate and if the men are running against each other that is a 50% win rate.

Actually the stimulus indicates that men and women have the same rate of winning. Quote: "Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men."

So that is really why choice B is wrong. It focuses on women who do run not winning, when the argument says that the women win just as often as men, so the real focus "is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run."

Now we do want to weaken this, but not by contradicting one of the facts. What you are trying to explain is why only 15% of those running for office are women, not why women don't win (we are told that they win just as often as men do).

Just a couple of things to consider...hope it helps

E is the correct answer...